1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

2325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates

On vote 2

Mr. King — 2325

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2328

Mr. Nicolson — 2330

Mr. Levi — 2332

Mrs. Wallace — 2336

Mr. Cocke — 2340

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2342

Mr.Cocke — 2342

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2342

Mr. King — 2343

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2345

Ms. Sanford — 2347

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2347

Mr. Stupich — 2347

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2348

Mr. Stupich — 2348

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2349

Mr. Stupich — 2349

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2350

Mr. Levi — 2350

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 2: executive council, $636,598 — continued.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

listened attentively to the Premier's (Hon. Mr. Bennett'

s) response to

the various points that had been raised by me personally prior to the

adjournment and also by the other members of the House. The Premier

basically outlined the problems that the government is facing in terms

of revenue, and I appreciate that. I think the opposition, and I think

the people of British Columbia, appreciate that economic times have

indeed been difficult, not only in British Columbia but throughout the

western world.

Unquestionably the world prices of minerals have dropped off

drastically over the past few years. Undoubtedly the market for forest

products with our main customer south of the border, the United States,

has dropped off with home-building starts reaching only a fraction of

the normal activity that exists down there. As a consequence, yes,

there has been a slump in the economy of British Columbia. But this

slump did not just occur. It came on heavily in 1975 and our

government, at that time, was confronted with the dilemma of sluggish

markets, too. But I find it somewhat curious that the Premier now is

prepared to acknowledge those problems, because while he stood here in

opposition he certainly was not prepared to recognize those problems

brought on by fluctuation in world markets.

Indeed, he went to the electorate during the election campaign of

December 11, and prior to that, telling the people and reassuring them

that he had all the answers to the economic ills of the province, that

the economy would be roaring and rolling again in short order if they

would only vote Social Credit, and the people of the province took him

at his word.

Unfortunately, now they find that the Premier no longer has the answers that

he offered during the election campaign. He finds now that there are no easy

answers at all, and, in fact, rather than trying to preserve and maintain services

and maintain employment levels, he has heaped additional penalties and burdens

on the people of B.C. by fantastic increases in virtually all public and social

services in the province, thereby reducing the disposable income of large numbers

of our citizens.

He has failed up to this point, and certainly in his response before

the adjournment hour, to offer anything positive in terms of direct

employment programmes that might ease and offset the impact of such

large numbers of our work force being unemployed at this time. There

are 114,000 people in British Columbia — 9.7 per cent of the work

force! And this was a government that was going to get things moving

again.

We recognize some of the problems, but the absence of any gesture,

any policy put forward by the Premier to try to offset this tremendous

economic loss to the province of British Columbia, is pretty hard to

take. It's pretty hard to take when he is not only ignoring the plight

of the unemployed, but heaping additional cost burdens upon them by

insensitive programmes brought in by people such as the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has in his jurisdiction the automobile

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. He brings in the extremely

punitive rates ranging up to 300 per cent and then has the brazen

audacity to tell the people that if they can't pay for their automobile

insurance rates, they should sell their cars.

Now the Premier made another election promise. He suggested that if

ministers in his cabinet didn't cut the mustard, they'd be rotated. I

suggest, Mr. Chairman, tonight, that it's about time that rotation

started. Indeed, because of the insensitivity and the unwillingness of

the Premier to respond to any of the economic and social needs of the

citizens of B.C., while at the same time coming before this House and

asking for his salary vote of some $48,000 a year, I think the first

one in the cabinet who should be rotated is the Premier, Mr. Chairman.

I think he is No. 1 for the rotation process.

I'm concerned. The Premier made a number of points during his

presentation. He said: "Look, the revenue to the government can only

come from one source, the people." That indeed seems to be the myopic

view of the present administration. Load it all on the backs of the

people, and as I demonstrated earlier, because of the policies of this

government, it's usually on the backs of the people who can most ill

afford to bear that burden.

The cost of all of the government increases to the millionaire

amount to 2.5 per cent of his disposable income. To the low-income

earner in the province of British Columbia it amounts to, I think I

said, something like 9 per cent. So it's a disparate initiative that

the government has undertaken. It compounds and worsens the disparity

that exists between income groups in this province. Yes, 6 per cent for

the average householder; he's suffered in terms of erosion of his

disposable income. The working poor have

[ Page 2326 ]

suffered a reduction in their disposable income of

9.8 per cent while that Okanagan millionaire who I referred to has

suffered a loss, an erosion, of his disposable income of only 2.5 per

cent.

So this clearly demonstrates, with a little bit of arithmetic on

anybody's part, that this government is benefiting the rich and

punishing the poor — the same old shell game, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier said the funds can only come from one source, the

people. But I want to remind the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that there are

other people in this society who are able to pay and should be called

upon to pay. I want to remind the Premier that Kaiser Resources is

shipping hundreds of millions of tons of coal, a non-replaceable

resource, out of this province annually. And I want to remind the

Premier that under our administration we increased the royalty payments

on that coal from I believe it was 15 cents a ton up to $1.50. Despite

that increase, last year in 1975, Kaiser Resources experienced the

highest profits they had ever achieved in their history in British

Columbia.

They can afford to pay and the Japanese steel industry is prepared

to pay the increased market value, no question about it. We have a

worthwhile, one-shot commodity to offer for sale, and if the Premier

had a little bit more fortitude in making demands, reasonable demands,

upon the resource potential of this province, then perhaps he wouldn't

have to visit such really insensitive and brutal burdens upon the

people. There's more than one source of revenue, Mr. Premier, through

you, Mr. Chairman.

But a government has to have the feeling for the people, and they

have to have the fortitude to demand from those great multinational

corporations that they pay a fair share toward the public coffers of

this province for the one-shot irreplaceable resource that they're

being allowed to export. I think that's a reasonable proposition.

So I wish that the Premier would raise his sights and broaden his

horizons when he's looking at methods of extracting yet larger sources

of revenue for the public coffers in British Columbia. The industries

are certainly not suffering, certainly not the coal industry. Their

share of the world market for coal has risen steadily. Their profit

margin has risen steadily and it in no way jeopardizes the economic

viability of their operation to demand a more reasonable share of

revenue in terms of the public needs of British Columbia from that

source.

He talks about spending priorities. He talks about minimizing or

virtually eliminating the Highways department budget so more dollars

can be expended for the purposes of health and human resources in the

province. But I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that, despite the

economic hardship that the Premier likes to infer as bedevilling this

province, it seems to be no problem for British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority, that Crown corporation, to undertake another mammoth

hydro-electric development on the Columbia River chain just north of

Revelstoke. That's going to have to be financed, and the capital funds

seem to be available for that kind of thing. So I wonder about the

priorities of this government.

In terms of the GAIN programme being any assurance and source of

solace to the senior citizens of this province, I say, my God, surely

you're not suggesting that the senior citizens of this province can

take some comfort from being relegated to the tender mercies of your

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the chap who

suggests that people might exist more comfortably on a diet of tulip

bulbs? Surely that's not the kind of compassionate sensitivity that is

going to comfort the senior citizens of this province and the indigent

and the handicapped people. I think that's insulting, Mr. Premier.

Now I'm going to move away from this and I'm going to....

Interjection.

MR. KING: I'm going to move away to some other topics, Mr.

Chairman, and the hope that the Premier gives some thought to the

points I have raised and comes up with some serious attempt to answer

those questions.

Just in passing, before I do, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that

this is not the first tough and stormy economic downturn the Social

Credit Party has had to face; they've faced them before. It's amazing

to see how much things change and stay the same over the course of many

years at times. I want to read an

article here; I don't know what it

will do to the Premier — it's a different government; it was a true

Social Credit government that was referred to in the stormy economic

times of August 6, 1935.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Wood sent it, I bet. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: No, no. Oh, no, I received this in the mail from

some considerate constituent in the province. I think it's worthwhile

just browsing back over it to see how some of the initial economic

policies and thrusts of the Social Credit Party of old and the Social

Credit coalition of today have remained constant and the same. I wonder

if the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia, that

former Liberal, ever thought that he would be hand-in-hand and

shoulder-to-shoulder with a group espousing the A plus B Major Douglas

economic theories. I wonder if he ever thought that, because some of

the economics seem to be the same.

Here's the statement, published and issued on August 6, 1935. It's

entitled: "The Dangers of Aberhart's Social Credit Proposals."

[ Page 2327 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What month?

MR. KING: August.

AN HON. MEMBER: What paper is it?

MR. KING: The

preamble says:

"We are a non-political organization, like the members

of the Economic Safety League of Alberta whose activities we welcome.

Our members are drawn from all parties in all ordinary circumstances.

Therefore we refrain from comment on general political issues. For

instance, the annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has

just been postponed so that it shall not be held on the eve of the

Dominion election."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that on vote 2 we've

been very generous in allowing wide-ranging debate, but somehow or

other, seriously, we would like to have the member relate his present

line of thought to the responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. KING: Oh, no problem there, Mr. Chairman. I certainly

intend to do that. I'm sure that everyone on that side of the House is

listening with bated breath while I draw a comparison between the

economic policies pursued by one William Aberhart and a William of a

newer, more modern era. I think the comparison, the similarity and the

cogency of this particular policy to the matter now before the

committee, Mr. Chairman, will become self-evident.

I'm not going to deal with it too long. I just want to deal with the

main subheadings that the Alberta Chamber of Commerce were objecting to

in the Social Credit platform of that day. I'm just going to read the

subheadings:

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's scheme for Alberta because it threatens the

ultimate mortgaging or confiscation of all private property." We had a

bill discuss this the other night, Mr. Premier.

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's plan as simply a huge debt-making scheme, a

further mortgaging of our future. Alternatively, we fear Mr. Aberhart's

plan as a colossal scheme of fresh taxation.

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's plan of crushing sales tax." And how familiar that is.

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's attempt to fix just prices on thousands and

thousands of articles and services, many changing almost daily."

There's a lot that's very similar, Mr. Chairman; I think that you'd

agree.

"We fear his attempt to pay dividends out of such intangible assets

as cultural heritage and undeveloped natural resources." And on it goes.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the Premier should go

back over some of the old, historic Social Credit dogma, and he would

learn that the economic approach he's taking today, which is one of an

ever-increasing tax burden on the people, ever-increasing burden of

costs for essential public transportation and so on, is not new; it was

tried before. It failed to do anything for the economy of Alberta

during the economic slump of the '30s and it's going to fail to do

anything for the people of British Columbia in the era of the 1970s —

except to heap more burdens and more hardships upon them.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has sent me a note over indicating Bennett

has conceded. I want to give him the results of the first poll — I think it

looks pretty good: Long — 44; Barrett — 154; Siemens — 4; Laver — 1. We haven't

conceded yet, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I want to talk, just for a minute, about the

Premier's office. I'm going to have a great deal more to say about this

as we go along. But just to give him some time to reflect on the

economic policies that he as Premier is responsible for, to collect his

troubled thoughts and come before the House with a more reasonable and

a more believable explanation, I'll switch to something that perhaps he

can relate to more readily, and that is the vote for the Premier's

office this year.

I have some difficulty understanding the new organization of the

Premier's office, and I'd like some explanations from him. The press

secretary to the Premier is shown in the vote. The estimates show the

position of press secretary at a salary of $19,500 per year. That was

the same rate that the press secretary of the former administration was

paid, and I have no quarrel with that. But this is the Premier's office

vote, and to this date no one has been able to determine or identify

anybody to fill that particular office vote, to fill that employment

slot indicated in the Premier's office vote.

However, I notice something else that is somewhat disconcerting:

under the executive council administration vote, which also comes under

the Premier John Arnett is appointed as press secretary with toe public

service designation of programme manager 2, and that salary is $28,860

per month. Arnett was previously head of the inflation services

department of the Department of Education with the same employment

status — programme manager 2, as I understand it. But in the executive

council administration vote there's no indication as to what purpose

the other amount of $125,000, which is also shown under the Premier's

vote, is to be put to There's $125,000 there with no indication, no

purpose whatsoever.

Now part of that may be used to pay Mr. Arnett's inflated salary of $28,860. I wonder how it is, Mr.

[ Page 2328 ]

Chairman, that the Premier and his colleagues

criticized the NDP for high salary levels, but I want to assure him

that no press secretary in the NDP administration realized a salary of

$28,860 a year. The maximum was $19,500. That classification still

exists in his department, and it would appear from the estimates, Mr.

Chairman, that the Premier sought to bring in someone at a higher rate

of pay — possibly someone who's a long-time party faithful; I don't

know — at an inflated salary, and to conceal that rather than use the

designated position under his office vote.

Now I can only speculate with respect to the purpose for which the

rest of that $125,000 is to be put. I saw some reports on television a

few weeks ago indicating that the Premier's new offices are indeed a

rather lavish affair, that there is a shower to be installed.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes! Imagine showers in the minister's office —

remember how those people over there criticized the NDP for lavishness.

I want....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): The Taj Mahal.

MR. KING: Taj Mahal? There was no office with a shower in it...

Interjections.

MR. KING: ...where apparently, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't really object too much to the

shower because I think there's a greater need in this new government

than in the old one — I think this new government has a real need to

come clean with the people of British Columbia. I don't object to the

shower too much. But look, I hear disconcerting rumours; I hear

disconcerting reports about that shower. I hear that no less than three

different tiles have been placed on the shower to suit the whims of the

Premier who's probably more used to rather exotic and luxurious

circumstances than most people in this House. But I think that's a bit

of an excess in terms of efficient, wise and prudent use of the

taxpayers' dollars. I want to know if this $125,000, which appears

mysteriously in the Premier's vote, with no indication of what purpose

it's to be put to....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Man, we have a vocal member down there from the

north who has little to say on behalf of his constituents, but he sits

there very vocally yacking away at every speaker that's up. I would

hope that perhaps he'd get up occasionally and try and make some sense

and some rational presentations to the House rather than sit there and

yip away like a lost voice from the north, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. I'll try to assist you — now to vote 2, please.

MR. KEMPF: Let's hear about the Taj Mahal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Want a deal on a $14,000 rug?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Boy, the cabinet is busy, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, there's no intention

of dealing in $4,000 rugs on this side. The last minister who did that

went to jail, as I recall. And he wasn't in our administration, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: Bring back the files, Gary.

MR. KING: That was the rug issue, as I recall it. Then, as I

understand it, his colleagues of the day pulled that very rug out from

under him. He ended up tuning pianos, I believe.

Mr. Chairman, these are questions I hope the Premier will answer. I

think the questions of this press secretary is an important one. Is

this a ruse to find a higher and padded salary for friends of the

government? Why hasn't the office vote designated as "press secretary,"

which offers the salary of $19,500, been utilized? That's the up-front

way to do it.

I want to ask further for a detailed explanation from the Premier as

to precisely what the $125,000 indicated in his office vote is to be

used for. I think there is due to the House a completely detailed

explanation of those dollars.

Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I just want to give the latest hot

report from Vancouver East: Long — 295; Barrett — 880; Lavers — 14;

Siemens — 26.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, before dinner when

we were dealing with more serious subjects I was answering the Liberal

leader (Mr. Gibson), but I see he is not back from dinner yet so I will

save my remarks on the constitution till he returns.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's listening to the results.

[ Page 2329 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to deal with the few remarks

of the acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). I guess he's not

going to be acting much longer, the way the vote is going in Vancouver

East. It might be early but I think it is probably time to offer

congratulations on the re-election of the leader. May I say that I

offer our congratulations on the high conduct in which the campaign was

carried. I am sure the House will welcome the return of the new member

for Vancouver East. (Mr. Barrett) .

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll pass that on.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The acting — for one more day — Leader of

the Opposition was concerned about the renovations taking place in the

area about to be occupied by intergovernmental affairs, the executive

council and the Premier's office. I might remind him of the history of

the west annex renovations.

The west annex, Mr. Chairman, is on three levels. The basement

section of the annex will house the news conference centre and

television studio. This work was started in 1974 while the former

government was in office.

Work on the top floor started in June, 1975, and was completed in

October, 1975. That is where the new cabinet room or executive council

chamber has been located. The new government was fortunate that this

was started and completed and ready for use for the new government, but

at great expense to the people of the province.

In the news conference centre in the basement final approval for

construction was given by former Speaker Gordon Dowding in January,

1975. Preliminary work started in July 24, 1975. Completion of this

work is estimated for sometime this summer.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that all of these renovations which were

underway, completed or near completion when we took office were

assessed as to whether they could be stopped, whether money could be

saved or whether we should proceed. As most of it was completed or

beyond halting, it would have been foolish to stop the restoration of

the legislative buildings; so we continued the jobs and the contracts

that were let when we came into office.

The first floor was originally scheduled to be occupied by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. The former minister, Mr. James Lorimer,

gave approval in layout in October, 1973, and work started in January,

1975. This is the office area that is being taken over by the Premier's

office in an attempt to reassign space in the legislative buildings for

the various portfolios. As was approved, it is being carried out by the

building manager, who has been with the public service for some time.

The second-floor offices were originally intended for the Deputy

Provincial Secretary. This is the area surrounding the finished cabinet

room that will house intergovernmental affairs and the staff for the

executive council.

I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that all architectural design work

for the annex, including office layouts, colour schemes and furnishings

was carried out by Alan James Hodgson as consultant to the Department

of Public Works. Mr. Hodgson was engaged by the former government to

design and buy the furniture and put in the carpets. At this time the

professional staff of Public Works feel that they can handle the job.

He now acts on an intermittent consultant basis but not to the degree

he was before. Overall management of the total project has been handled

by departmental personnel, and work in the annex has been carried out

primarily by Public Works departmental staff.

The Department of Public Works records indicate expenditures of

about $423,000 to date. Mr. Chairman, I might reiterate that that

$423,000 for the west annex was for work that was started in 1974-75

and mostly completed in that time. On the basis of past experience it

could be estimated the office areas in the annex cost about $40 a

square foot. The construction took place prior to us becoming

government, and in some areas of the building the cost has reached $52

a square foot, particularly in the east wing, sometimes referred to the

Taj Mahal.

The executive council chamber and press interview theatre both

involve special services and construction such as air conditioning and

acoustical treatments, and communications in the press theatre will

cost considerably more than in the office areas. The press theatre in

the basement and the cabinet room were started and designed by the

former government and work was primarily completed. In fact even the

press gallery and the CBC were called in to do some of the acoustical

was all laid out and mostly carried out before our party became

government.

I would say that the office to which the Premier's office will be

moving to has had very little changes made. Changes made to this total

office area included enlarging one office by approximately six feet,

cutting in one new door, relocating one other door on the first floor,

and creating two additional small offices on the second floor by

subdividing larger rooms — because we have smaller desks than the

former government ministers had.

In the washroom, which was already located, a shower was added for

the Premier's office, and I don't apologize for wishing to appear neat

and clean.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much was it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The shower was added to

[ Page 2330 ]

the $427,000 building as carried out by the NDP at a cost of less than $300.

1 might say that the carpet in the west annex was already purchased

before we came to office in a bulk purchase made in June of 1974. This

carpet came in two qualities — $26 a square yard and $22.89 per square

yard. The executive council chamber and second-floor offices are

carpeted in the more expensive carpet, and the first floor has the

lower-priced carpet. The total value of the carpet installation was

$23,381.

Furnishing for both office areas in the annex was selected from

stock built up by the Department of Public Works since the start of the

parliament buildings project. Furniture layouts were prepared by the

consultant hired by the previous government, Alan Hodgson. All desks

installed in the west annex were acquired from February 7, 1974, to

April, 1975, except the desk for the Premier's office, which is one of

the original pieces from the building, refurnished by the Public Works

department. All chairs, filing cabinets and accessories for the west

annex area similarly come from Public Works stock.

I might point out again that the adjustments that we have made to

the office formerly set up for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

now set up for the Premier were again: enlarging one office by six

feet; cutting in one new door; relocating one other door; creating two

additional small offices on the second floor; and adding a shower to

the washroom which was already constructed.

Mr. Chairman, it's no secret that we spend long hours in the office

now, unlike many of the other governments, working to clean up some of

the problems that face British Columbia. Quite frankly, the adjustments

made to the office, compared to what was there, are very infinitesimal

in a $420,000-odd cost that was contracted and mostly achieved by the

former government.

I'm sorry they brought it up, because I wasn't going to mention the

expense of renovations to the buildings that were contracted by the

last government.

I see the acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) has gone. He

asked a question about the press secretary. He suggested to this

Legislature, Mr. Chairman, that the press secretary was a hired party

personnel, and I would like to....

Interruption.

AN HON. MEMBER , We put a whoopee cushion on it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As I've already extended my congratulations to the opposition on the election of their leader, I don't think I'll do it again.

I suggest that the press secretary is not the press secretary

position that was formerly filled in the Premier's office. If you'll

remember the appointment that went through by order-in-council, it was

a press officer to the executive council in the Premier's office, and

that will come out of the executive council vote. There is no one

filling the $19,500 job that was formerly filled by Mr. Twigg, as it

was felt it would be impossible to replace exactly what he did.

Many of the positions as outlined in the estimates are not yet

filled, but I would point out — since the former acting Leader of the

Opposition has requested — that the $125,000 vote for executive council

administration is an estimate. I tried to outline earlier in my remarks

that this would hire the support staff for council committees or serve

the executive council. Only one position is filled in it now. That's

the press secretary to the executive council and the Premier's office,

which is to the cabinet. The press officer there does correlate all

news releases from government departments and tries to make information

more readily available both to the press and to the public.

It would be hoped that we could serve the cabinet committees through

this vote rather than through the staff of the line departments. We

felt it would be better administratively, but we really have no idea

just how many will be needed in this vote to carry out that duty. It

really is taken as an estimate, gauging a minimal amount compared to

what it costs to serve executive councils in other provinces in Canada

who do have an executive council vote. I might suggest that.... I have

some figures here on what it costs the executive council vote for other

provinces. I'll get that later because I can't readily put my hand on

it but that's where that vote is coming. The press secretary's duties

are carried out for $19,500 by Mr. Twigg — that position is not filled

at the present time.

Now I think that answered the questions of the former acting Leader

of the Opposition. The first part — the statement he read from 1935 — I

have no comment on it nor do I want to read from the Regina Manifesto

or the Waffle Manifesto or anything else.

MR. KING: Why not? You might learn something.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I did read from it and the voters learned a lot.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, the Premier,

I hope, has a little bit more knowledge of what is going on than some

of his ministers did, because during estimates we've tried to get

answers from certain ministers of things that might fall under their

purview. I tried to get up-to-date lists of boards of directors, for

instance, pertaining to industries in which the provincial government

has some equity or financial interest. It took three days with one of

your ministers, Mr.

[ Page 2331 ]

Premier, to get him to even admit that he was on

the board of directors for Swan Valley Foods Ltd. And three days is, I

think, rather ridiculous and a cat-and-mouse game.

I think it's an arrogance which is perhaps being reflected in this

vote which we see this evening in this by-election. If you'd been doing

so well that the people thought that your ministers were doing their

jobs properly, that they were at least sincere.... It's one thing to

get up and protest and say that you're trying to give remedies and you

say that things are difficult. But when the people see this kind of an

arrogance, Mr. Chairman, when people see arrogant ministers like the

Minister of Agriculture, who is the first minister I know of who hasn't

showed up.... I'm sure that the member for Skeena, when he was Minister

of Agriculture, made a point to be at the Women's Institutes' annual

general meeting when it was held. He nods his head and he says yes. I

say to the Premier that it's time that you got your ship in order

because it's going to sink if you don't get those ministers under

control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I interrupt the member long

enough to remind him that order in the House is much more easily

maintained if you address the Chair?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I am addressing the Chair, and when I say

"you" I try to very carefully make it certain as to whom I refer, using

that second person, either singular or plural. It's because in the

confusion.

But, you know, I think that there is certainly a danger, and if

there was any tendency of the people to believe that this government is

seriously trying to change things for the better, that the faith of the

people is certainly shaken with arrogant attitudes such as that, the

arrogance that was exhibited when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) took three days to admit that he was on one board of

directors.

Now the Premier, Mr. Chairman, has said that they would not have

politicians — MLAs and cabinet ministers — sitting on boards of

directors. The other day we saw a resignation from the B.C. Steamship

Co. Why did that occur? It listed the directors with which that manager

could not get along, almost all of which, I think, were cabinet

ministers. I don't think this is widely known, and I'd hope that if the

Minister of Agriculture can't tell me full boards of directors.... I

don't want to know full boards of directors; I want to know which

cabinet ministers the Premier has told to go on which boards of

directors.

Let's start, for instance, with some of the agricultural enterprises

in which the provincial government holds equity. In Chef Ready Foods

Ltd., for instance, are any of the cabinet on the board of directors?

Are any of the cabinet on the board of directors of IOK Poultry Ltd.,

in which the provincial government holds an equity position? Are any of

the cabinet ministers in Kootenay Dehydration Ltd., in which we hold

equity; or in Panco Poultry Ltd., in which we hold equity; or in

Pan-Ready Poultry, in which we hold an equity; or in Dawson Creek-South

Peace Dairy Products Ltd., in which we hold equity; or in Swan Valley

Foods? Are there any other ministers, for instance, besides the

Minister of Agriculture on the board of directors of Swan Valley Foods?

These are some of the ones with which we might make a start, because

things are taking place.

The minister issued a press release concerning Swan Valley Foods the

other day. There was a further extension of credit, and I think there's

been tremendous foot-dragging and a fairly reluctant extending of

grants and loan guarantees ...

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: ...in order to keep it going....

Well, I do think that one of the mistakes we might have made, or

that Swan Valley might have made, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Premier, was that Swan Valley might not have asked for enough in the

first instance. I believe that was a feeling they might have needed.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, of course I am not going to say what they

should or should not have, not being taken into the confidence of the

minister as to the present financial situation. I would say that with a

venture of this type I would like to see the government stand firmly

behind it. I would like to know what the situations are today. I do

know that you can't lose by extending money so that another potato crop

can be planted and harvested. That is a very obvious thing, and you

have to stand behind it to that extent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your riding?

MR. NICOLSON: Of course, it's in Nelson-Creston. You met with

those very same principals when you were on the agricultural committee

— when I use "you," I mean the minister who is interjecting, the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — but he was on the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture. He heard a presentation from Swan

Valley Foods back in the spring or summer of 1973, I believe, when the

first travelling committee.... Was it 1974? Anyway, he knows full well

that it's in my riding.

[ Page 2332 ]

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Maybe I am going to learn something here this evening, Mr. Chairman, that I couldn't learn from the Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I was there only yesterday, but....

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Did you look at the ground?

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I was in your riding yesterday.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour seems to

know quite a bit about it. Is the Minister of Labour on the board of

directors of Swan Valley Foods?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just plant the potatoes.

MR. NICOLSON: You just plant the potatoes. Well, that's good.

MR. LAUK: Between your ears.

MR. NICOLSON: It is very difficult, of course....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to point out to the Premier, Mr.

Chairman, that, yes, I was in my riding and I got a phone call. People

were saying that there were rumours the government was going to sell

its interest to Arab money. Now I happen to recall, Mr. Chairman, that

they had made an offer to sell some of the expertise and technology and

some of the patent rights to Arab interests for distribution and use in

certain countries, and this might be the basis for some of the rumours

which are going on.

There was such an announcement made publicly some time ago when

things of that nature.... Whether its uncertainty about the operation

and a lack of communication, but when government even refuses to

disclose who the current board of directors are, then rumours — which I

don't believe are well founded — start to take place. I think the basis

of that rumour is that there was a genuine interest in the patent

rights shown by some Arab interests, and in the technology of the Swan

Valley Foods' packaging.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, these people are just about as confused in government as they were in opposition.

It wasn't an offer for the company, and I am referring to something

that appeared in the paper. I am saying that it did not refer.... I've

had to go and clear up some misunderstandings and try to keep a

reasonable and responsible attitude toward it. I haven't tried to make

a political issue out of things, but I have tried to keep informed —

something which is rather difficult to do with such an arrogant

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who might be better termed

as a Minister of economic incompetence and a Minister of disastrous

developments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of indecision.

MR. NICOLSON: The message I'm trying to get across to the

Premier is that with a reluctance on behalf of the Minister of

Agriculture to even so much as comply with a promise that he made me

during his estimates that he would supply me with the list of all

directors for all of these companies...with such a reluctance people

become rather suspicious. There was, I think, a half-baked story going

around in the riding this last week when the announcement of the

further financial assistance came up, and instead of being good news it

sparked more controversy. I don't think that should be the case.

So I would say that the Premier could assist and do a lot of people

a good favour if he would give some of the information, which I'm sure

he would have — he must know which of his cabinet sit on boards of

directors of various companies, and he could at least volunteer some

information. He needn't limit what information he is giving, you know,

so that he.... I wouldn't expect him to start guessing or speculating

or knowing about every one, but he must have some pretty good ideas of

who sits on what boards of directors. So I'd like to find out if I can

get from the Premier some of the information that the Minister of

Agriculture failed to disclose.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, just earlier,

when the Premier got up to concede victory in the Vancouver East

by-election, I was interested in how quickly he dumped his candidate;

he only had five polls in and away he went — conceded. That's a

remarkable kind of trust he had in that individual who ran for him.

Interjection.

[ Page 2333 ]

MR. LEVI: No respect for what? We'll talk about respect now.

Do you remember this, Mr. Premier — an ad that was put in the paper

November 29: "From Bill Bennett to Senior Citizens re Mincome and

Pharmacare."

"An unfair rumour is circulating that the election of

a Social Credit government would end or reduce Mincome, Pharmacare and

other pension benefits. My pledge to you is this: any Social Credit

government I'm privileged to lead will guarantee the continuance of

these benefits."

One of the reasons you lost that by-election over there in Vancouver

today is because nobody believed you when you said this. Nobody.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Not true at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair; we're on vote 2, Hon. Member.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

You went around this province; you went up and down, and you told the story to people, particularly old people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll address the Chair, and the Premier, through you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member understands that addressing the Chair is the essence....

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you'd just move back, I could see the Premier. I can't see the Premier just yet. Ah, now I can see him.

Mr. Chairman, he went around this province saying to the old people

of this province that it was not true; they would not take away

Mincome, they would not take away Pharmacare. And they didn't know what

to believe; they didn't know whether he was speaking the truth or

whether he wasn't. But today in the Vancouver East by-election he has

an answer for what has happened since December 11.

Four years ago in this House, Mr. Chairman, there was a motion that

was moved by the former Premier of this province (Mr. Barrett) — who

was elected today — to guarantee a $200-a-month pension. This is it:

that side of the House voted against it.

The Attorney-General is in a very difficult position, Mr. Chairman.

After all, he was sitting on this side of the House then, and he didn't

vote against it.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): It was an amendment, for your information.

MR. LEVI: Yes, we know it was an amendment, and you knew

exactly what the intent was, Mr. Attorney-General. It was to give the

citizens, the old people of this province a guaranteed income.

We have the Premier going around, Mr. Chairman, and he says that the

history of our party in helping the senior citizens is well known. Yet

in that same month four years ago, in this House, the then minister of

welfare was asked the question: "How many people in this province get a

guaranteed income of $191?" That was the former Premier's proud boast:

"That's what it is — we have the highest guaranteed pension in Canada,

at $191." It was the case. That's what you could get — $191. You got

$150 from the federal government and $41 from the provincial

government. But the then minister of welfare in replying to the

question said: "Twelve hundred and eighty-two people are getting a

guaranteed income up to $191." — 1,282 people out of a total senior

population of 205,000, with 107,000 on guaranteed — income supplements.

That meant that more than half of the seniors in this province in

February, 1972, were living on $150 a month. Yet, Mr. Chairman, they

keep trotting out this stupid kind of story. It's allegory. It's really

apocryphal — there's no substance in it. If one is going to say one has

the highest pension in Canada and yet when you ask how many people got

it and you find out that 1,200 people got it and yet there were 108,000

people that needed it, what kind of substance is there in that kind of

argument?

So what do we have? We have this kind of advertisement that went

around during the by-election, Mr. Chairman, and then in late February

or early March the Minister of Shovels couldn't wait to cut back the

Mincome pension, with the approval of the Premier. He couldn't wait to

cut it back.

The other day the minister was in Ottawa doing the people's

business, and I questioned the Premier about the stuffer that was put

into the old people's cheques in which he said that nothing has

changed, that everything is the same as it was before. That's nonsense.

It's not the same as it was before.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's better.

MR. LEVI: It's better? You can go like that, Bill, but

nobody's going to believe you. It's not better when you're a

handicapped person and you were getting $265 in January and when it

comes to April 1 you're still getting $265, Mr. Chairman. How can it be

better when, if you are over 65, you're getting $272? How can it be

better? How much can it be better?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much were they getting under the NDP?

[ Page 2334 ]

MR. LEVI: We approved the $265 starting January 1. We passed on every quarterly increase....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): That's a lie!

MR. LEVI: The quarterly increase? Don't tell me that's a lie — I said the quarterly increase.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You never passed the first one on.

MR. LEVI: That wasn't a quarterly increase.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What was it, then?

MR. LEVI: That was not a quarterly increase; that was an overall increase in the pension.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's a lie!

MR. LEVI: Don't be ridiculous!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, when that government went out in 1972....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: He's very twitchy over there tonight, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Very twitchy. There he is, the Minister of Un-facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Minister of Health to withdraw the words, "you're a hypocrite," if he would, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, it just isn't possible that from the

time of the election on December 11, to today, June 3, when we've had

the first by-election in this province, when there's been an

overwhelming statement by the people in Vancouver East, greater than

I've ever known it to be in the history of that riding.... What you

have really is the people over there saying something on behalf of the

rest of the province.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: There we go again — the twitchy one's down there. Why don't you keep quiet and listen?

It's traditional in the province when you have by-elections that the

government is voted against — that's quite true. It happens that way.

But one has to really question, when the victory is so overwhelming —

something of the order of 71 per cent of the vote for the winning

candidate. A lot of questions have been asked.

I know that some of the members from that side have been into the

riding during the by-election. I was there during the by-election, and

the Minister of Shovels was there about three days before I was there.

The thing is that people are asking questions. Particularly the old

people are asking questions. Where do they stand? Where do they stand

in respect to the Mincome programme? I can't talk about this GAIN

programme because that's before the House, Mr. Chairman. I'll have to

wait until I get that opportunity to explode the myth of that programme.

The main thing is that there's a great deal of uncertainty among the

old people in this province that's never been exhibited for the last

three and a half years. There is tremendous uncertainty among the

handicapped, who are not getting the kind of breaks that they should be

getting.

All of this, Mr. Chairman, goes back to the kinds of promises that

that Premier made when he went through this province and he talked

about it.

He said in the advertisement, I recall, in my own riding that they

were so upset that people were not really believing what was being said

about the Mincome programme that they actually put out a special

leaflet in which they said: "No, it's not true. We're not going to take

away Mincome." It was very similar at that time to the leaflet that was

put out: "No, it's not true that we're going to take away the rent

control." You know what happened with that one, Mr. Chairman — that

only turned out to be half true. They kept the rent control at 10 per

cent, when we had already indicated it was going to be 8 per cent, but

they took off the freeze for the small businessman. Yes, you took off

the freeze. That was your contribution to the small businessman's

problem, as your contribution, is today with what's happening in

Victoria and the rest of the province. You can shake your head, but

that's what you did.

You haven't done one thing yet, Mr. Chairman, that Premier hasn't

done one thing for the small businessman to show that he's intent on

doing anything....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What did you do?

MR. LEVI: Oh, the voice. Where's that voice from? Oh, yes, Esquimalt.

[ Page 2335 ]

The important thing, Mr. Chairman, that through you I would like to

ask the Premier, is: when he went around this province saying to the

old people of this province, "we will not take away Mincome," why is it

that he has done just that? Why is it that he has destroyed the Mincome

programme? Why has he introduced the GAIN programme? Do you know why?

Because we've got George Orwell in 1976. This is the Social Credit

Newthink, Mr. Chairman. Everything that took place between 1972 and

1975 didn't exist, so we have to get rid of Mincome and we'll call it

GAIN.

But, you know, there's a great deal of difference between what I

understand the GAIN programme is to be — and that's as much as I'm

going to say about it, Mr. Chairman — and what Mincome was, because the

differences have already been shown. There are differences; it is not

the same programme. It has been destroyed.

Now I would hope that the Premier will explain to us exactly what he

means when he says that he is going to restore British Columbia to

first place in terms of pensions for senior citizens. Now what does he

mean by that? Does he mean that he is going to take it back slowly to

the 1972 days, when you had 205,000 senior citizens in this province,

and you had 1,280 that had a guaranteed income of what was then the

highest in Canada — $191? You know, it's amazing that when we

introduced the Mincome programme, Mr. Chairman, over here, one of the

members, the former member for Victoria, got up and introduced a bill

to take Mincome to $225, but, you know, he wanted to do it on a means

test. That's what they want to do. They brought back the means test.

Now everybody who is over the age of 60, everybody who is

handicapped, is going to be means-tested. We're back to the dirty '30s,

the days of the dole. But, you know, that Premier went around this

province; he went on T.V. I remember when the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland), when he was just the member for Langley, bravely went

to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre on December 2. Does he remember, Mr.

Chairman, the kind of greeting that he got from the senior citizens? Do

you remember? I remember the kind of greeting you got. You barely got

out of there with your socks on! They had already experienced that kind

of thing from the Social Credit government, and they were not prepared,

Mr. Chairman, to believe them.

But, you know, we have to deal in facts. We had that Premier

standing up not 30 minutes ago and conceding after five polls. Well,

here we've got.... How many polls is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: 130.

MR. LEVI: One hundred and thirty polls. Long has got 5,220; Barrett has got 14,930.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hurray!

MR. LEVI: Never in the history of this province has there

been a by-election like that. Do you know who's speaking out there? The

senior citizens and the handicapped and the poor people. They're

speaking to you, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You know, the people I really feel sorry for, with

all due respect — and they're not here tonight — I forgot to mention

the vote that was gotten by the Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr.

Curtis') former party. That was 167 votes, and the former candidate for

the Liberal Party, who is now the minister of shovels, his candidate

got 707 votes. The former Premier (Mr. Barrett) of this province, he

got 14,930.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 2.

MR. LEVI: Well, those are facts, Mr. Chairman. Those are

facts and they relate very much. There's a certain irony that on this

night this Premier's estimates should be up, and that former Premier is

on his way back. We've even got his chair ready for him. It's there.

The only question is: how quickly can we get the writ over, Mr.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom)? That's the important thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to vote 2.

MR. LEVI: Now to vote 2. I would like the Premier to be frank

and tell us exactly what he meant, Mr. Chairman, with this Act. He said

that he would not take away the Mincome programme, yet he has destroyed

it. How does he explain that? How does he explain that this is the kind

of thing that we inherited as the government? "Socreds Kill $200

Pension Vote." That was in his father's day.

We have it today over here. The Mincome programme is wiped out. Now

he owes it to the people of this province, and particularly to the

senior citizens and to the handicapped, to tell us what it is you're

going to do to them more than what you've done now. You have destroyed

the Mincome programme. You have taken the handicapped back.... Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I'm looking at you. You've taken the handicapped programme to

where it was before....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You people don't know that. You've got too much money; you can't be that concerned

[ Page 2336 ]

about those people. Tell us why it is that you have

the nerve to go around this province.... You know, I could say that you

lied, but that's unparliamentary, and I'm certainly not going to say

that.

But, Mr. Chairman, he took an election opportunity to say to the

people: "We will not take away the Mincome programme. We will even

improve on it." That's not the case; those are not the facts, Mr.

Chairman. Of course, the facts that prove it are these facts — the

election of the former Premier to this House. He'll be back within a

week and then we will see.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, as a

comparative newcomer to this House, over the past couple of months I

have been getting acquainted with the various members on both sides of

the House. But tonight it is a great pleasure to have in the House a

member who I really have not had the opportunity to become acquainted

with. Now it isn't because I haven't been here. I have been here quite

regularly. But I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the

Premier to the House tonight. I am very pleased to see him here and be

able to talk to him a little bit about the feelings of a new member to

this House and discuss, through you, Mr. Chairman, the aspects of his

estimates.

As a woman member in this House, Mr. Chairman, I am curious about

the Premier's attitude towards a woman MLA. I have noted that the

Premier's wife has been quoted in the press as saying politics is a

man's world. I am just sort of wondering if that is the Premier's

attitude too. Because it's not what a person says; it is what a person

does that reflects their true attitude. I am thinking of what the

Premier has just done or his various ministers have done on his behalf

in regard to women since December 11.

It still concerns me very gravely, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier

would allow or condone his only woman minister in the cabinet — would

condone her action — in doing away with the office of women's

co-ordinator as one of her very first acts. I am concerned that he

would go along with the action of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) in closing the transition houses. I am wondering, in

fact, if that Premier over there is even aware of what a transition

house is or the need for a transition house. I would like to hear his

comments on this particular thing.

What commitment, Mr. Chairman, has the Premier made to assure that

women will be able to work towards their rightful place in the business

world? What has he done within his various departments? Has he issued

any directions to his ministers regarding the employment of women

within the government departments? Is he moving in the direction of

allowing and encouraging women to participate more fully in the more

highly valued and more highly trained jobs within the department? Is he

making full use of that other 50 per cent of the population of this

province, which has really become one of the greatest wastes that we

have within today's society because we do not make use of the abilities

of the women who are prepared and willing to use their talents and

their skills? Believe me, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier through you, the

women of this province do have skills and talents that can be put to

good use for this province. I would ask the Premier to comment on these

points.

I would be very encouraged if I thought the Premier would be willing

to accept a bill that would move in the direction of the affirmative

action bill in the United States. But we have no assurance of any kind,

Mr. Chairman, that this is going to happen. An affirmative action bill

would not necessarily relate just to women. There are other groups in

this community that need the same kind of attention, the same kind of

just a little extra boost that something like an affirmative action

plan could produce.

I am thinking particularly, Mr. Chairman, of the native Indians.

They have just not had the opportunity to participate to the fullest

degree of their ability in today's society. We saw one big beautiful

burst of enthusiasm as far as the native Indians went when this

government first took office. Really, they were riding on the

coat-tails of the former administration when they had their tri-party

get-together on the land claims. Because that had been laid on, Mr.

Chairman, through the efforts of the former Minister of Human Resources

(Mr. Levi). He had insisted that that would be a three-party

negotiation, that all parties would be allowed to participate equally.

He refused to make any private deals with the federal government prior

to that meeting.

You've had that meeting, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, and

what has happened since? The rumours that I hear, the world that comes

to my ear, is that this government is now making sweetheart deals with

the federal government regarding the native Indians, that they are

making pre-plans and not allowing the natives full participation in a

tri-party agreement as a full member. I would ask the Premier to

comment on that, Mr. Chairman.

I have probably the highest Indian per capita vote or population or any constituency in....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: A good many, to the member, through you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2337 ]

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, this is word that has come to me and I've

asked you to comment on it, Mr. Chairman. If you have comments on it,

you'll have your chance, Mr. Premier.

I want to turn now to agriculture, particularly the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips). You know, he's really a very nice

person, but, Mr. Chairman, I have real problems with that minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MRS. WALLACE: He's a non-minister minister! You know, I've

been suspicious for a long time that that Minister of Agriculture

didn't know where he was going, but today I found out in the question

period that he doesn't even know where he's been.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: But, Mr. Premier, I think you really should

know that the farmers are quite discouraged with the fact that they

don't have a full-time Minister of Agriculture, and, you know, that's

the third-largest resource industry we have in this province. I would

urge the minister to move very soon to give the farmers in British

Columbia a full-time minister, one who has the time and the inclination

to look after their problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the ability!

MRS. WALLACE: That's fine. I will excuse the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: I will excuse the Premier because I'm sure that he can read, and I'm sure my remarks will be recorded in Hansard . I'm sure that he will read it and he will come back and reply to my remarks.

Some of the problems that the farmers are concerned about, Mr.

Chairman, are becoming more and more aggravated all the time. You know,

the Minister of Agriculture has just filed his report, and in the

report the economic performance of the agricultural industry in British

Columbia.... I'll just read the first sentence: "British Columbia farm

cash receipts increased by $29 million or 7.8 per cent to a record $395

million in 1975."

Mr. Chairman, the farm industry in British Columbia has taken an

upward turn in the last year, and I would suggest to this House that

that upward turn is due to one thing and one thing only and that is the

very far-seeing policies that were introduced by the former

administration. Now if we have a reversal of those policies, there will

be a disaster in this province. We must continue those policies. We

must enforce them and extend them so agriculture can continue to thrive

and be a viable industry and part of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, we must have that kind of commitment to the

agricultural community that will provide for just that sort of

forward-moving development of the agricultural industry.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is responsible

for the appointment of the cabinet. In case the minister was unaware of

that, I think that perhaps I should tell him, because maybe, you know,

in the meantime while we're waiting for a new minister, it will make

him spend a little more time on the matters relative to agriculture if

he is aware that there is someone over him watching what he's doing.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the Premier is not back yet but, you

know, it's just a very normal procedure that he isn't here. So I think

I will just carry on. You know, all during the election we saw him

jaunting around the province, tilting at windmills, a veritable Don

Quixote, and since the election we've seen just the same.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: He's still jaunting around the province, tilting at windmills, Mr. Chairman.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): How many times did he go to China?

MRS. WALLACE: And now this man comes here, this Premier, and

asks for his salary, asks for his estimates, the man who a few short

months ago in taking the position, promised the voters that he would

institute — and I am quoting the Premier — "an immediate freeze on

taxes." I wonder if that Premier remembers his own campaign promises,

Mr. Chairman. Certainly I remember them and so do many others in this

province.

MR. LAUK: Don't remind him of any more; he won't keep those either.

MRS. WALLACE: To earn his salary as a Premier, he must be

credible. But to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians today, he

is not credible; in fact he is incredible.

The candidate who promised to freeze government taxes turns out to

be the Premier presiding over a cabinet of sharp businessmen who have

gouged the

[ Page 2338 ]

innocent with increases of 100 or 300 per cent,

while at the same time cutting back on services everywhere. This

Premier, while showering the taxpayers with unnecessary bills, conducts

a massive public relations snow job trying to shift the blame on the

former administration — trying to shift the blame onto the NDP for his

own actions and to persuade the people to tighten their belts because

of actions of the former NDP administration.

He has the audacity to do this after forcing through this House a

bill to borrow $400 million which he indicated to the House — and the

Minister of Finance, speaking on his behalf, indicated to the House —

was to cover what purported to be the debts, the problems, created by

the NDP government. He borrowed money to do this and now he is turning

and using the same excuse and forcing tax after tax after tax upon the

people of this province, a double taxation because he is borrowing

money to pay it. But the taxpayers are going to have to pick up the

interest on that, this so-called mythical debt, and then he is raising

the taxes to do the same thing all over again.

In short, he is using any excuse to hide the real purpose for this

punitive tax-increase policy in the province. And that purpose, Mr.

Chairman, is to shift a large chunk of the economic burden back onto

the people and off the big combines, exploiting the public resources

and the people of this province.

Consider the government's actions and then its word. It has raised

sales tax, which during the course of its four-year term in office will

provide the government with an accumulative total of about $1 billion —

$1 billion in four years from the sales tax. The people of this

province will have to turn over to the government some $250 million in

extra income tax.

Look at the cumulative, added revenue from the other increases over

the next four years. Autoplan premiums will return something like $800

million more. The cigarette tax alone will bring in $50 million. Ferry

rates will add $150 million to the Treasury. Medicare premium

increases, by the budget's own projections, will bring in a stunning

$350 million. The hospital co-insurance and extended-care increases

should add an extra $75 million. B.C. Hydro's gas and electricity rate

increases will provide an additional quarter-million dollars, and the

double campground fees, I suppose, could realize as much as $5 million.

That totals something like $2.930 billion over the four years, or

three-quarters of a billion for each year in addition to the revenues

of this government and its agencies.

But what do we find in the budget this year, Mr. Chairman? The

budget has increased only 11 per cent. That's the same amount as last

year when none of the terribly large and heavy increases were visited

upon our citizens by the previous administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say that increase was?

MRS. WALLACE: It's 11 per cent. So this year's budget does not reflect the....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: It's 11 per cent, Mr. Chairman. I would differ with the minister.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Did I hear that member correctly, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm suggesting that

this year's budget does not reflect these huge increases in revenue. It

only reflects the normal budgetary growth. The Premier has not

volunteered any explanation for this strange fact. It is obvious to me,

anyway, why he hasn't. What I believe is the answer to the apparent

conundrum is that while this government has been busy piling on

increases on the ordinary citizen of this province, it has also been

busy removing an equivalent amount of burden from the shoulders of the

big cartels and the multinational corporations.

I can't remember whether it was the Leader of the Liberals (Mr.

Gibson) or the Leader of the Conservatives (Mr. Wallace) who today

asked the question regarding some tulip bulbs, or was it gladiola

bulbs, that had theoretically been given out — I don't like to use the

word "bribe" — as, shall we say, a gift during the by-election.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to quote from Hansard back in 1975 and I'm quoting the remarks of the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). It's from page 779 in Hansard :

Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who

offers a gift to someone running in an election. Let there be no doubt

about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity

known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to give. That

man expects favours in return.

That was the now Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if

the Premier would give us the benefit of his opinion on the subject.

Does he agree with the Minister of Education that any campaign gift

does automatically expect favours in return? I'm thinking about

Imperial Oil. They have admitted to their shareholders that over the

past five years they have donated to the Social Credit, Liberal and

Conservative Parties across this country some $235,000 per year. I'm

surprised, or should I not be

[ Page 2339 ]

surprised? Perhaps I'm still a bit naive in this

House. But when I find that the Premier of this province, if I can

manage to speak over my friendly colleague in front....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. Is your colleague disturbing you?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm learning to put up with him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, $235,000 from Imperial Oil in campaign funds over five years is $35,000 a year to the three parties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

MRS. WALLACE: Not to the New Democratic Party. We don't seem to merit any funds from that particular source, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: And then the Premier goes to Ottawa and

advocates a $2-a-barrel increase in oil. And does Imperial Oil need it?

Their net income in 1972 was $157 million. In 1973 it went up to $228

million and in 1974 it went up to $290 million. I think Imperial Oil is

doing quite well, and now we hear the excuse that they need it for

exploration, Mr. Chairman. But that's been shot down in flames, too.

Figures have been put forth to indicate that there was no more spent by

Imperial Oil on exploration in 1975 than there was in 1974 — not one

cent more. So I'm wondering. I'm curious, and I'd like to hear the

Premier's comments on it.

But let's get back to the $3 billion extra tax money that's coming

in from all these taxes — the $3 billion extra that's not needed to

cover off the debts, as has been said. That extra money, Mr. Chairman,

I suggest, is simply the measure of the huge gift the government plans

to hand to its financial benefactors in the form of reduced royalty

payments, subsidy incentives and price-fixing umbrellas for the private

insurance industry, the resource industry and other friends. No doubt a

small fraction of this cumulative tax burden will be used three or four

years from now in an election campaign programme of goodies intended to

sway the voters and buy them back with their own money. Mr. Chairman,

through you, I suggest to the Pren-der that that is what this new

coalition government's so-called "fiscal responsibility" is all about.

They are operating...

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: ...a cynical public relations job simply to rob

the pockets of our citizens and turn the proceeds over to the foreign

firms while accusing the New Democratic government of fiscal

mismanagement because it took its social responsibilities to our

citizens seriously.

It's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, where this $3 billion which

represents the recent increase in taxes, utilities, ferries and so on —

I'm just reiterating because the Premier was out of the House when I

went through these details — will come from. The calculation of the

impact of these direct government increases to our citizens over and

above the cost of living that the rest of Canada is facing — the

increased cost of living — shows that the old and the poor and the

middle class will have to provide the bulk of the extra revenue. It

won't come from the millionaires, Mr. Chairman. No, it won't come from

the millionaires. The majority of that will come from the average

person in B.C.

Consider that a typical B.C. household of four living in a home in

Duncan or Ladysmith on an after-tax income of about $20,000 will this

year lose $1,140 over and above the cost-of-living increase of all

other Canadians. That's due solely and directly to the unwarranted

increase in government charges.

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, this is a reduction in the

real purchasing power of no less than 5.7 per cent so far this year

alone for the average British Columbia family. But the working poor,

Mr. Chairman — a family of four whose head earns about $4 an hour —

will be hit even harder. He will pay out no less than $635 of his

disposable income simply to cover the increases this government is

charging this year. That means a reduction in the standard of living

for his family which is already classed as poor. It's already classed

as poor, but it is facing a decrease in its disposable income of 8.7

per cent. Will the rich in our province be hit as hard, Mr. Premier?

Will the millionaires among us have to tighten their belts by 5.7 like

the middle class or suffer an economic setback of 8.7 like the working

poor?

No, Mr. Chairman. If we take a member of this House who has just so

magnanimously taken a 10 per cent cut and does not have to pay B.C.

Ferries rates and who has an income of, say, $80,000 after tax, what

per cent would that represent? It would be less than 2 per cent, as

compared to 5.7 or 8.7. That money is taken directly and unashamedly

out of the pockets of the poor during an inflationary period, and the

sacrifice of the millionaires amounts to nothing. It's only a token.

MR. KEMPF: What member has an income of $80,000? Name one.

[ Page 2340 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Quite a few, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I am not addressing the Premier. I do not want

to make any personal remarks but I would suggest that he would not

argue with that figure. No populist would squeeze $3 billion more than

needed out of the population over a single term of office in order to

hand it over as a gift to the big cartels and combines that are out to

exploit the people and the resources of this province, Mr. Chairman.

That $3 billion will come from the excessive taxes and rate increases

imposed by this government. The middle-class family will provide $4,500

from its income to provide this slush fund for the coalition cabinet's

disposal. The increase will cost the working family $2,543 over the

four-year term. More increases may yet be coming; we don't know if we

have heard them all yet.

The existing increases already guarantee that the old-age-pension

couple will be $1,069 short and the Mincome couple $1,187 short by the

autumn of 1979. But, of course, we can expect an election around that

date, Mr. Chairman. The slush fund that the cabinet will have by that

time can be used to distribute special campaign goodies with which to

bribe the voters.

What will the Premier's election slogan be next time, Mr. Chairman?

Will his PR team use "think free B.C." again? We all know who can think

free in this province now. It's the wheeler-dealers, the boomers, the

fat cats, the Daddy Warbucks, Mr. Chairman — the smoothies. They feel a

lot safer in Maui or Palm Springs now, or in the New York or Toronto

boardrooms. They are singing along; they are singing along that

coalition government song that was sung on election night: "Happy days

are here again!" Those are the people who are singing along, but I

believe the voters of Vancouver East have spoken out loud and clear

today. They have said what the average citizen in B.C. is thinking.

They are not thinking: "Happy days are here again!"

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again.

MRS. WALLACE: No, the song that Vancouver East and the rest

of B.C. Is singing today is: "Who's sorry now?" In four years that will

be proven, Mr. Chairman.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): They just want a good opposition; that's all they want.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't seem to have the Premier's attention. I

don't know whether I am going to get any responses, Mr. Chairman, but

perhaps if I were to sit down he would have a response for me.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I heard the

Premier indicate that we were to discuss Hydro under the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). I would like to refresh

the Premier's memory that when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), the fiscal agent for Hydro, was in the midst of his estimates,

we asked him whether or not he was to be not only the fiscal agent but

also to report for Hydro. If anybody would care to check Hansard , it was that minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe) was in error. The Transport minister (Hon. Mr. Davis) is the

only director from Hydro in the cabinet. When his appointment was made

as minister responsible for energy, he was made a director to report

back both from the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and.... He's on both the B.C.

Petroleum Corp. and Hydro. However, while he is responsible for Hydro,

as the minister responsible for energy, the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources and Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will

be responsible for the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly I'm not going to argue that point. We have yet to discuss the

Minister of Transport and Communication's estimates, and I'm sure that

under those estimates we will be able to cover the issues.

The Minister of Finance, of course, was wrong again. He was wrong

when he was talking about huge sums in debt, and now he's wrong about

who's to discuss B.C. Hydro.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier, who is first minister

of this province, should bear in mind a few facts that are a bit

unnerving to most of the people in B.C. and pass on to his minister in

charge of energy the concerns that I and others of our caucus, and

certainly other people across the province have, and I'm certainly not

going to deal with this in any detail or in any depth.

I am unnerved every time I see the controversy which is beginning to

develop between the B.C. Energy Commission — their feeling with respect

to the reserves of power that are going to be needed over the next 5,

10, 15 and 20 years — and the difference between similar projections

made by Hydro, which are actually double the Energy Commission's

suggested need.

Mr. Chairman, we have been in a very fortunate position in B.C. We

have immense reserves of hydro power. We're in a position similar to

little old Norway. Little Norway, with very sound economic planning and

generally well-planned economy over the years, has developed its hydro,

power very carefully. Notwithstanding the oil that's recently

[ Page 2341 ]

been discovered around Norway, their hydropower has

put them in a position where by the year 1980 Norway forecasts — and

other nations, I believe, go along with this forecast — that they will

be the world's richest country.

Now Norway hasn't become the world's richest country — or

prospectively so; we know that Sweden now has the highest standard of

living — by planning which did not take into account the basic and

proper needs of their nation. They didn't take into account needs that

may or may not be developed by virtue of creating a situation where

they were dependent upon industry to move in where a vacuum had been

prior. They developed around their own four million people, and they

developed for their own needs.

They've done just an absolutely fantastic job when you think in

terms of where they are situated — worse than we are geographically —

further north. A great part of Norway, of course, is beyond the Arctic

circle. The job they've done there in planning, I think, has been a job

that's well to be looked at by our cabinet.

Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman — I suggest that Hydro is

far too close. You know, smiles from cabinet minister and all really

don't mean that much to me, but our province means a great deal to me,

and what our cabinet should be looking at is an independent body, not a

body that's so wrapped up in it as Hydro always has been in the past.

An independent body like the Energy Commission should be given a great

deal of credence, should be really listened to by our cabinet.

Now certainly we all want to discuss this in much more detail later,

but I would like to ask the cabinet to take a look at that planning

process that has been going on in Norway over these years, a planning

process that really is something we should look at because they're so

close to us in potential development. In other words, they are based on

hydro power — their sole economy. Notwithstanding, as I said a few

minutes ago, the fact that they've now discovered oil in the North Sea,

but prior to that their whole economic base was their hydro power.

We have to watch this carefully here, but if we put ourselves into

terrible debt — as is likely — by the projections put forward by B.C.

Hydro, we won't really be an enriched economy. While we may attract

some industry and we may build a larger economic base than we have

heretofore, we still could be an economy that just limps along, based

on that kind of planning.

But, Mr. Chairman, I had a good deal of trouble — and I'm very happy

that the Minister of Health is in his chair — interesting the Minister

of Health in something that I think can be a fiscal disaster in this

province. I would ask the First Minister, who leads a party that

espoused that they are the people with sound economic direction — put

B.C. back in somebody's pocket, or put B.C. back together again, or

whatever the phrase was — what we're doing out at the university. In my

view, it is an absolute economic disaster.

The first minister should be quizzing two ministers in his

government. One, he should be asking the Minister of Health to be part

of a decision that broke up the B.C. Medical Centre — like that or lump

it, to the Minister of Health, I think that was wrong — but as

disastrous, if not more so, is the decision to go with the university

hospital on the university campus.

Now, Mr. Chairman, through you to the First Minister, we had

discussions that this present government had no possibility of

duplicating in the short time that they were in office. We had

discussions with people who had both worked to put together university

hospitals in different areas of Canada and also worked to put together

university training programmes, using hospitals that were a part of the

community.

Mr. Chairman, there was no doubt about the efficacy of the latter,

as opposed to the former. Now I predicted, and I don't know whether the

first minister got this, but I predicted that the university hospital,

which is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe that this was dealt with

under the estimates of the Minister of Health, and if we accepted your

premise, we would deal with every minister under the First Minister's

vote. So could you get back to the vote?

MR. COCKE: That's right. I'm reporting to the First Minister

a responsibility that he has to this province as being the minister in

charge, the president of the executive council of British Columbia, the

fiscal agent of B.C. As far as I'm concerned, he's most interested, I'm

sure, in what costs will be, because, you see, Mr. Chairman, the costs

for this new university hospital are something that the Premier is

going to have to deal with.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier

would be interested to know that the $50 million hospital isn't going

to cost $50 million. It's going to cost $90 million — $60 million to

build, $30 million to equip — and it's going to cost $22 million to run

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe that this has been canvassed before.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Chairman, the Premier of the province is

naturally in charge of intergovernmental affairs. Now we have a

conflict, we know perfectly well, of interest, a conflict of interests

[ Page 2342 ]

between the Health department and the Minister of Education.

When I first became Minister of Health in this province, you can't

imagine the number of people who were leaning on me from academia.

That's right, and, you know, rather than listen to people with biases,

we took our time — and, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education was one

of the people who were really leaning with respect to the direction,

that I feel is a misdirection, that the Minister of Health has chosen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are dealing with the Premier's vote, not the Minister of Health.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, who's responsible when you can't

deal with the Minister of Health? The Minister of Health didn't even

make the announcement about that hospital. It was made by the Minister

of Education. Now if there isn't some kind of co-ordination....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I cannot accept the proposition

that every minister's vote is discussed under the First Minister's

vote. Would you kindly relate your questions to the Premier's vote?

MR. COCKE: That's right, and I'm relating my question

directly to the Premier, and I think that he has a good deal of trouble

in his cabinet. I think that the trouble will continue until such time

as the Premier decides to take into account some of the needs of the

province that are not being served, by a friction that obviously has

developed between these two departments. So that's an area that I hope

that the Premier will consider.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has been accused of a number of things

since he's been Premier, and one of the things he's been accused of has

been that he has been focusing people's attention at the opposition for

every move that he makes that has discomfited the people in the

province.

I suggest to you that one way that he can restore confidence to the

people in this province is to restore a, little bit of co-ordination in

his cabinet. I've suggested the ways and means. Mr. Chairman, I don't

accept the fact that he's not responsible. I accept the fact that if

there is friction, if there is a difference of opinion in that cabinet,

then it is up to the Premier to see to it that the needs of the people

are served in this province, and they are not being served by this kind

of friction.

There is obvious friction. I had access to the operating cost

estimates, and I had access also, long before this, to the capital

costs that we face. This is horrendous, and it's outrageous.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, earlier the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) asked about cabinet members being

directors of seven corporations. The answer to the first one is no. No.

2, no cabinet ministers. No. 3, no. No. 4, no. No. 5, no. No. 6, no. As

for No. 7, Swan Valley Foods, as you know, is in some difficulty. I'm

unable to comment on it tonight because I don't have the latest

information but, as you must know, the situation hasn't changed since

the election. When you were government I think the government lent the

company somewhere near $ 10 million. It's under review. It's a very

difficult situation, and I'm sure the minister responsible will report

to the House himself.

The others are all, no, no, no, no, no.

The hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) asked some questions before

dinner, and I thought he'd come back this evening. He hasn't been in

tonight, but I would like to cover the part he questioned on the

constitution. He was concerned about British Columbia's position on the

constitution. I would like to reiterate again the position we have

taken and will be taking with the Prime Minister at the First Ministers

Conference or at any subsequent conferences concerning the constitution

and its patriation.

We feel that the patriation of the constitution, bringing it back to

Canada, should be

an act of unity,

an act of bringing the country

together. It shouldn't be done in any way that may divide the country,

and it shouldn't be done in any way that will heat up the regional

differences that may balkanize Canada. Therefore it shouldn't be

brought back under a series of negotiations where one province or one

region plays against the other and places conditions upon the simple

act of patriation.

We suggested to the Prime Minister that the simple act of patriation

would be

an act that would unit Canada, but that in the bill before the

British Parliament to patriate the constitution or repatriate it to

Canada the guarantee be given that any amending formula must have

unanimous consent of all provinces and that until such an amendment

formula is arrived at any additional constitutional changes must also

have unanimous consent of all the provinces, in that way avoiding the

squabbling that may take place now in trying to bring the constitution

back. All of the arguments or the representations on constitutional

change could take place while the constitution is in Canada.

I think under these conditions the constitution being repatriated to

Canada could be

an act that could unite this country. But any

unilateral action by the federal government and any unreasonable

demands by any provincial government would be divisive at this time and

would be unwise and, in fact, would be unwarranted.

The Liberal leader and member for North

[ Page 2343 ]

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) also asked about

the revenue sharing that is coming up and equalization. As I said, we

have programmes coming up on revenue sharing in Health, Human Resources

and Education. Those ministers will be accompanying me to Ottawa on

Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, June 12, 13 and 14, and it will be a full

First Ministers Conference of a highly technical nature. In preparation

for this conference we've had some of the new staff that have been

added to Finance and to the departments to do research and projection

in these areas working steadily. Their first reports are in, and those

reports will go to the technical meeting that takes place in Ottawa on

the 8th and will be a basis for the final positions B.C. takes at the

conference on the 13th and the 14th.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) suggested some

sort of commission on these things. I might add that we have a series

of meetings that are set up — First Ministers' Conferences or Western

Premiers' Conferences — and we do now have the liaison between

governments that wouldn't warrant the setting up of another

investigative body outside of the present structures to look into

cost-sharing. It would just be one more report

whereas the mechanism is

there now, and it's well controlled and looked after under

intergovernmental affairs or through our new co-ordinating department

in the Premier's office.

There was a point brought up earlier I think by the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). I just wanted to clear it up because I

don't think I did clear it up. He mentioned the new press secretary to

the executive council. I would want to point out that this secretary

was part of the civil service. He was hired by the former Minister of

Education, the member for Burnaby North now, Eileen Dailly, and he

passed the competition and the exams and was hired by the former

government into the Education department. He was moved over because of

the outstanding job he did with that department over two years, and was

given the category of programme manager 2 in the very responsible job

of press secretary to the executive council. He's called upon now to do

much more travelling and work much longer hours than he was in his

previous job. I would want to very much point out that he is not a

political appointment, but did come from the professional civil

service, and was already hired by the former government. I would not

want to leave that impression before the House.

I would point out we passed a bill concerning the 10 per cent

reduction in MLAs' and cabinet ministers' salaries. Two members of the

Premier's office staff have had the 10 per cent cut on their salaries.

One was the executive director to the Premier's office, who had the

existing salary that was there from the executive director to the

former Premier of $36,000. It's been cut by 10 per cent to $32,000 this

year. The same applies to the executive director who replaces the

former planning advisor to the cabinet. He was appointed at the very

same existing salary, but that has been cut by 10 per cent this year as

part of the cuts that have been taken by the Legislature and the

cabinet.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) made a strong case as

to whether the Premier's office recognized women in responsible

positions, and I can only say that for the first time in the Premier's

office they do have executive positions. The chief administrative

officer, which is shown in the votes as $19,500, is a woman. In the

last government there were three administrative assistants, all men.

It's the same with the administrative officer in intergovernmental

relations. Two of the top four senior positions are held by women in

the Premier's office in intergovernmental affairs. This wasn't done for

any other reason than to find the best people that would suit the jobs.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, before I raise a number of points I

wanted to raise, I would like to observe that it appears that the

election results in the Vancouver East by-election are certainly all

but complete and without any question as to the outcome. I want to

thank the Premier for his earlier comments and congratulations to the

successful candidate, the leader of our party. I'm sure that many

members on all sides of the House recognize the contribution that our

leader has to make to the public life in the province.

At the same time I would like to, again I believe on behalf of all

members of the House, extend my best wishes, my thanks and my

congratulations to all of the candidates that ran in that by-election.

I think we all know that anyone who stands for public office subjects

himself to disruption in his life in many ways, and I think we all feel

some sensitivity and some affinity with those people who had the

fortitude to stand and offer themselves for the service of the public.

I want to wish them well. I want to congratulate them on a good

campaign and thank the government for their kind wishes.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier's comments regarding the gentleman who is

shown as his press secretary I accept without question. I simply posed

some rather rhetorical questions as to who the man was and what

appeared to be a rather inflated salary over that which had been

established as the press secretary's position. I accept the Premier's

comments on that. I accept his explanation of the qualifications of the

individual much more readily than I accept his explanation of why it

was necessary to employ the individual in a new category, in effect an

existing category but a new slot, because I can well appreciate the

kind of cry that would have gone up had our government developed a new

position of this nature.

[ Page 2344 ]

In a time when the Premier and his government are trying to convince

the opposition and the people of the province that restraint on all

fronts is necessary, I find it perplexing that the government has found

it necessary to manipulate classifications, in effect, to justify a

rather fat salary of $28,000-some a year for the purpose of the role of

the press secretary. I want to make that observation for the record.

I want to move to a new topic, Mr. Chairman, a topic that I think

resides clearly and unequivocally within the realm and the

jurisprudence and the ambit of the Premier's authority as the No. 1

minister of this government, and that relates to the need to do

something with respect to campaign funds in this province.

I want to remind him and the government, his colleagues, that great

things were proffered in the course of the last election campaign about

what this new coalition was going to do to regulate and restrict the

temptation of accepting large slush funds from people who in many cases

are not prepared to identify themselves, and which raised the question

of precisely what return favours those donors expected to receive for

their contributions.

During the Premier's estimates last year the present Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the first member for Vancouver Point Grey,

had quite a lot to say. I hope that the Premier will heed, if even

retroactively, the advice of the Minister of Education, and this one of

the few times that I would commend the Minister of Education's advice

to the Premier. But the Minister of Education has a good deal to say in

the Premier's estimates last year, because he was somewhat exercised

and upset about a $200 cheque which apparently had been directed to one

of the then cabinet ministers.

On page 779 of Hansard for last year, 1975, the current Minister of Education had this to say:

I've said quite clearly what the ethics should be.

Anybody who donates before or after an election and who makes

personally known to you that he is giving money, and the amount of

money he is giving, is himself guilty of improper motives.

That's the opinion of your colleague, the Minister of Education.

It's very strong stuff and I think it would be well heeded by this

government. He went on:

Let there be no doubt about the motives of any one who

offers a gift to someone running in an election or elected. Let there

be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his

identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to

give. That man expects favours in return.

That's what the Minister of Education said: "...expects favours in return."

Now I think the Premier has an obligation to state again the

position on this. They have been strangely mute and quiet since the

election campaign. I think it would be interesting to know who paid for

all those radio ads during the last election. You know — "Thanks for

the memories." All those things.

Interjections.

MR. KING: That's the Aloha cookie; I think they were waving goodbye to you, my friend. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education had good advice to offer. I

think the Premier should heed him and I think he should have something

to say about this tonight. I don't know whether that's a wave goodbye

or a victory sign the Premier gave to me, but hope springs eternal, Mr.

Chairman.

The Minister of Education thought that anyone who paid large or

small campaign donations, and made it known to the politician that he

was contributing to their campaign, was seeking favours in return. The

Minister of Education has been in politics a long time; he has had a

lot of experience. He's not a new-found coalition member; he sat over

here leading that once-great Liberal Party for many years. He has a

family background in politics and should know whereof he speaks.

So I think the Premier should give us the benefit of his opinions on

this subject. Does he agree with the Minister of Education that Social

Credit campaign fund donors want favours in return? And what's more

important, what favours will they be after? What about the Imperial Oil

company? Do they expect favours? Because I understand, by their own

publication, that they made large campaign contributions to the

Liberals, to the Conservatives and to the Socreds. They admitted in

June last year in a report to shareholders that for the past five years

they have been giving money to the Social Credit Party in B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. KING: The total amount they said they donated to Social

Credit, Liberal and Conservative Parties across the country was an

average of $235,000 per year over five years. Not exactly a pittance,

you know — that's a pretty weighty campaign contribution, I would

think. I want to remind you what the now Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) thinks of that. He said: "I've said quite clearly what the

ethics should be. Anyone who donates before or after an election, and

makes personally known to you that he is giving money and the amount of

money he is giving, is himself guilty of improper motives." Very

interesting. I want to know how much of that $235,000 the Social Credit

Party of B.C. received. I would like to know, and I think the

government has an obligation to tell us in light of the strong opinions

of the Minister of Education, an executive council member now.

[ Page 2345 ]

1 think perhaps the government is being called upon to return

favours. We have already witnessed their first favour, I suggest, Mr.

Chairman. Shortly after the election of the present government,

Imperial and other oil companies who no doubt also sweeten the Socred

campaign funds, were allowed to increase the price of home heating oil

by 4.5 cents per gallon.

AN HON. MEMBER: A coincidence.

MR. KING: I talked about the Prime Minister's responsibility

for the total economic thrust of the government. That's unquestionable;

that goes without question. Certainly if the Premier has the ability to

influence the economic thrust and approach of his government, then it

is possible that there is a tie-in, by implication and by the

statements of his own Minister of Education, of improper motives here.

It's the setting for questionable relationships between the government

and their campaign donors. In other words, is economic policy —

permissible price levels for gasoline and petroleum products — being

determined on the basis of the amount of campaign funds donated by

Imperial Oil and other oil companies? This is what the Minister of

Education said.

I think this is a serious thing. I think the Premier of the province

has an obligation to get up and talk about it, and an obligation to

tell us precisely where the government is going to go with respect to

this very important matter. Is this government here in essence to

protect the rights of all the citizens of the province who elected

them, or are they here to do the bidding of those who paid the piper?

The Minister of Education says these people are guilty of improper

motives. I want to ask, Mr. Chairman: what about the other industries

that unquestionably did make campaign contributions to the coalition

government? What about the auto insurance industry? They certainly did.

They did by running a heavily financed advertising campaign totally on

behalf of the Social Credit Party in the last election. It was obvious

to anyone. Unquestionably the government knew, and unquestionably by

implication of what the Minister of Education says, that return favours

are now due. Is that related in any way to the policy statements issued

by the Minister of Education, the minister responsible for ICBC — that

the private insurance cartels are going to return to this province,

going to be allowed back in to cream the industry? These are

interesting questions.

What about the mining industry? I think, Mr. Chairman, that

unquestionably they kicked into the Socred campaign chest. I think they

unquestionably did. I wonder what favours they expect in return. What

will be the slant of the new royalty legislation that comes in? Is the

Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) being influenced by anyone in

terms of the direction and the level of royalties that are going to be

required from this resource industry — this basic irreplaceable

resource industry? I don't know, but certainly I think the opposition

is obliged to ask these questions when one of the current cabinet bench

people has assured us, as is recorded in Hansard last year, that these are serious and valid questions that must be asked.

I think the Premier.... I don't know what he's going to say —

whether he is going to get up and say the same thing as he said about

that Minister of Education before, that his remarks were unfortunate, I

don't know whether he is going to do that or whether he is going to

assure this House that there is going to be strict legislation

forthcoming which is going to publicly regulate, in a very effective

fashion, the method under which the elections of this province will be

conducted, and respecting not only campaign funds but the whole realm

of law that should be reviewed. I would like to hear the Premier get up

and talk about this.

I hope he doesn't take any umbrage at the remarks I put forward,

because I'm just quoting from one of those dissident Liberal people who

were welcomed into the fold with open arms just a year ago. Sometimes

if the record of the past comes back to haunt one, then he should not

blame the opposition for that embarrassment. So I'd like the Premier to

comment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

MR. KING: No, not yet. I have much more material here. Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier should answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Revelstoke

brought up the question of party campaign funds and campaigning. I'm

sure this subject was well exhausted during the election campaign.

Before that we had some of the most ridiculous amounts tossed around by

— well, I shouldn't say the former leader — the returning leader of the

New Democratic Party. I was hoping that we shouldn't have to keep

fighting the old election campaign over and over, but what I said

then... I made an offer that they could have a chartered accountant go

through our firms, any major one of their choice and go through the

party. The offer was never taken up because, of course, the statements

weren't true.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I did say during the campaign was that

because I may have to keep another promise that wasn't kept by the

former government who promised all sorts of things, had

[ Page 2346 ]

three and a half years of government.... Every good

thing we do now — ombudsman, auditor-general — oh, "We would have done

it." We would have done it, they say, but they never did it while they

were here. One thing we said we'd do is have a royal commission on....

MR. KING: You are being crassly political.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're going to have a royal commission on

electoral reform, and that royal commission will study all aspects of

elections. It will consider party funding. It will consider limits on

campaign funds. It will consider redistribution. It will consider all

aspects to update and bring British Columbia into the realities of a

modern-day election.

MR. KING: So long as you don't invite Gerry Mander to it, it will be all right.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I make the commitment to the

House that this commission will be struck, report and legislation will

be in place before this House goes to a general election next time. Now

I know we heard that promise from the last government. In fact, it was

even in the throne speech. I used to feel embarrassed for the

Lieutenant-Governor months after that was said in the throne speech and

it was never acted upon.

Mr. Chairman, I do say this will take place. I have no way of

knowing the findings or the recommendations of such a commission but I

do say it will be struck, be given wide powers from redistribution to

examining party funding, and certainly this will do a lot to allay the

fears of the public who may believe some of the wild stories that

circulate about what happens in politics. I think that some credibility

will be established when the wild exaggerations can no longer be given

any credence with those types of rules enforced. So I look forward to

such reform taking place in British Columbia in the next few years, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. KING: As long as it satisfied McGeer, that's....

HON. MR. BENNETT: An earlier question that was asked was about the executive

council and the $125,000. As I said, it was a new vote in line with what other

provinces do. It was arbitrarily arrived at. The only expenditure out of it

so far is the press secretary to the executive council, which is the cabinet.

I would point out that the $125,000 for the executive council comparing it to

other provinces.... In Alberta, the executive council has a vote of $1,235,000;

the executive council in Manitoba, $3,244,500; in Ontario, $1,190,000; New

Brunswick, $777,000; Newfoundland, $855,000.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So I think that in a first year, Mr.

Chairman, of providing an estimate of support staff for the very

important cabinet committees, $125,000 perhaps may be minimal. We may

have underestimated, but we had to pick a figure. This was in light of

what other provinces have done.

While I'm on my feet answering, I might also point out that

intergovernmental affairs, which replaces the old advisory planning to

the cabinet which has a vote of $282,000 — there again,

intergovernmental affairs in Alberta is $1 million; in Ontario, $2

million; in Quebec, $16.8 million; and in Newfoundland, $282,700. So

we're even less than Newfoundland again. I might point out that this

vote is $282,000 compared to $276,000 last year. But in reality it's

much less because there's a new figure in there, $61,300 for Canadian

intergovernmental conference secretariat. Now this was an agreement

that was already signed by the former planning adviser to the cabinet

for the $60,000. It wasn't signed by any government cabinet minister.

It was an agreement signed with Ottawa that this province would have to

pay that amount for a number of years to support the secretariat in

Ottawa.

If we take that out we would be running that department at much less

than it ran previously. Also the Premier's office, which runs with a

vote of $228,000...this compares with Ontario at $1.219 million; New

Brunswick, $931,000; Prince Edward Island, $567,000, and Newfoundland,

again, $472,000 a lot more than British Columbia. So you can see that

we aren't asking for a large amount of money to correlate the

activities of the executive council, intergovernmental affairs and run

the Premier's office. In fact, the figures may prove to be light —

maybe not for this year, but in the future as we expand the cabinet

committee or the executive council co-ordination, which I believe is in

the best interests of good government that it take place and that's the

interaction between different government departments. I'm sure the

members opposite who have been in the cabinet would agree that this is

a good move and would make for a better government, more efficient

government.

Also the fact of having intergovernmental affairs and the executive

council all running out of the Premier's office — so we don't have some

under the Provincial Secretary's vote, and using different staff from

the line departments — in fact affects the performance of the

departments themselves.

Let's see if there are any other questions I haven't answered here.

[ Page 2347 ]

MR. LEVI: Yes, the question on Mincome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now we have before us the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard mentioning the Mincome programme. But we have the

GAIN legislation before us, and that will be called for second reading

any day, and also the Minister of Human Resources's estimates will come

up; I'm sure you'll get a fuller answer, and it is improper to discuss

legislation that's before the Legislature.

There was a question earlier from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

on DREE, and whether we would support the proposal which she's working

on with the federal member in getting DREE money for the road to Port

Hardy. I'd suggest that British Columbia has always fared very poorly

when it comes to getting DREE money. We haven't received a share on a

per capita basis, nor on any other basis, which British Columbia should

be entitled to.

The Minister of Economic Development is negotiating a new form of

British Columbia getting DREE money. I'd like to say that it meets the

criteria of how I think federal money should be spent to further the

economic activities of British Columbia. I don't believe in grants for

specific industries, like a particular company, but rather to a general

concept, and that's the way we're working on having DREE money spent in

British Columbia.

We're not looking for — as someone very close to your party, or used

to be, talked about — corporate welfare burns; we're looking for the

co-ordinated spending of any federal money in a co-ordinated provincial

programme that would service an area. Certainly, if such activity is in

your area, that would be considered. But right now the way DREE will

affect British Columbia is being negotiated, because we just haven't

got our fair share in the past, under both preceding governments.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the

Premier with respect to his answer as far as my question this afternoon

is concerned. But I understand that there is a possibility of a

subsidiary agreement which could be drawn up at this time and signed by

the provincial government for the specific purpose of completing the

two contracts still outstanding on that road.

I was talking today to some of the people within the Department of

Regional Economic Expansion, and they indicated to me that that was a

possibility, that a subsidiary agreement is possible, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if the Pren-der would answer

that specifically, as far as the subsidiary agreement is concerned.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I can't take the question as notice

in estimates, but I'll provide the answer for you if my estimates are

completed. I'll get the answer for you, because I have no knowledge of

the subsidiary programme that's being negotiated by Economic

Development. However I will get the answer for you.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you. I appreciate that.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, at least the hon.

Premier is trying to answer the questions that are put to him. Some of

the ministers previously, in presenting their estimates, were just

silent when questions were asked. I think not so much the questions or

the answers would have been embarrassing, but perhaps they didn't know,

Or chose not to answer, or whatever. There are some questions that were

asked of earlier ministers that could have been answered and would have

disposed of the questions without need to repeat them, or without need

to ask them later in the discussions of estimates, and I would like to

ask the Premier some of these questions.

Some of them would relate to his address as delivered on February

28, 1976, when he first made public the Clarkson Gordon report. I think

at that time in the beginning of his speech, the words he used would

indicate that Clarkson Gordon had been asked to do a job, of research

and a review in the auditing sense — not just a review meaning a

cursory look at it, but a review in the full auditing sense. Yet

Clarkson Gordon, certainly in their statement, didn't say that.

I would just wonder whether the Premier would like an opportunity to

clarify just exactly what he had in mind when he asked Clarkson Gordon

to do their job. Does he agree with the Clarkson Gordon introduction to

the report — that is that they were simply asked to consolidate

information that was made available by the government? In his remarks

in that address the Premier did express some concern about the extent

to which people taxes, in particular the 5 per cent sales tax and

personal income tax the degree to which the government was depending

upon those two sources of revenue.

I wonder whether he would like to comment on just how he squares

this with the fact that the budget before us now shows an increasing

reliance, both in terms of absolute dollars and in percentage, on both

the 5 per cent sales tax and this personal income tax, in that the rate

of both taxes has been increased. Yet there has been no increase that

we know of with respect to the resource-revenue items. In fact,

campaign promises were made that some of these would be reduced.

Beyond that, there is the question with respect to the report — and,

as I say, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was asked this

question and he didn't answer it, just sat silent when the question was

asked a number of times — and that is that apparently he had the report

in his possession for some 10 days.

[ Page 2348 ]

During that time he insisted.... In answering

questions he would say only that no figures were changed. He was very

careful to repeat that answer time after time, which led us to believe

that something else was changed, or that something was added, or that

something was subtracted.

I would invite the Premier, in his capacity.... I'm thinking now of

the new title, executive council administration. Perhaps the Minister

of Finance didn't answer because he didn't know the answers, and if he

didn't, then the only one to whom we could turn for answers like that

would be to the Premier, the head of the executive council

administration.

The other question that was asked repeatedly of the Minister of

Finance, and likely he didn't know the answer and that's why.... I

don't know why he didn't tell us he didn't know it. But he, at least,

gave no answer at all. That was the question as to the revision — or

the second printing — of the budget speech in an amended form — that

is, there was something deleted from it. Now we asked who gave the

instructions for that. The Minister of Finance was asked outside of the

House, and it would appear from his early answers to that question that

he wasn't even aware that a revision was being printed. Then when he

was asked in the House he simply was very silent on the subject. I

wonder if the head of the executive council administration could tell

us who it was that authorized this change in the printed budget speech.

As I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, once we have the answers

to those questions, really the question ceases to be important. I think

we could very easily dispose of these if we had the simple answers as

to who did these things. Then it would be no longer a matter of

importance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no way of knowing. The

idea of appointing a separate Minister of Finance was to do just that.

I don't participate in the Finance department. The only place I

participate is as a member of Treasury Board. I have no knowledge nor

do I know who would make any changes in how financial information is

presented. You will have to get that information from the Minister of

Finance himself. I've no way of knowing.

I would say that you asked about our financial report to the people

of the province and how I described the instructi